Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively☆
Introduction
Helping is an inherently social behavior that can be investigated from either a motivational perspective (why do we help?) or a situational perspective (when do we help?). This study integrates these perspectives by connecting Weber’s (1998) theory of decision modes with research on situational differences influencing helping (i.e., helping effects; Loewenstein & Small, 2007). The question of interest is whether different helping effects are primarily mediated by different psychological processes. We expect that the identifiable victim effect (IVE) is primarily mediated by emotional reactions, that the proportion dominance effect (PDE) is primarily mediated by perceived impact, and that the in-group effect (IGE) is primarily mediated by perceived responsibility.
Section snippets
Three psychological mechanisms that promote helping
According to the taxonomy of decision modes suggested by Weber (1998; Weber & Lindemann, 2007) decisions are driven by affect-based, calculation-based, or recognition-based psychological mechanisms. These three decision modes can be applied to most kinds of decisions, but like Ames, Flynn, and Weber (2004) this article focuses on decisions in helping situations.
Affect-based help decisions can be referred to as “helping with the heart”, e.g., when intense emotional reactions elicited by the
Mediators of different helping effects
Although mediation is commonly examined in helping situations, our study is, to our knowledge, the first to systematically explore if different helping effects are primarily mediated by different psychological mechanisms. We focus on three of the most well-known helping effects: (1) the identified victim effect, (2) the proportion dominance effect, (3) the in-group effect.
Common methodology for Studies 1–3
In Study 1–3, we test the hypotheses using a within-subject design with joint evaluation where a helping effect is manipulated in several steps. Participants first read a background story about a certain helping situation. They then read four versions of the helping situation. The only aspect that changes between the versions is directly related to one of the three helping effects (IVE in Study 1, PDE in Study 2, and IGE in Study 3). Participants compare all the versions and, on the following
Method
Sixty (15 women, 45 men, Mage = 21.90, SD = 2.06) Swedish students completed a paper and pen questionnaire. Two male participants who had more than four missing values were excluded.2 Participants read four easily comparable versions of a single helping situation (all versions of all helping situations can be found in the Supplementary material). In the baseline version 1 (statistical victims),
Method
Forty (17 women, 23 men, Mage = 21.80, SD = 2.17) Swedish students participated. One male participant who had more than four missing values was excluded. The design, layout and measured variables were identical to the one used in Study 1, but the helping situation closely resembled the one used in Erlandsson et al. (2014, Study 2) and involved African children suffering from bacterial meningitis and described a vaccine that could save many lives. In the baseline version 1, participants read that
Method
Forty (19 women, 21 men, Mage = 23.48, SD = 2.83) Swedish students participated. One female participant who had more than four missing values was excluded. The design, layout and measured variables were identical to the previous studies, but the helping situation concerned a girl in need of a kidney where the participant was a suitable donor. In baseline version 1, the girl was described as the daughter of a former male classmate of the participant (out-group). In version 2 she was described as the
Study 4
The aim in this study was to replicate the findings from Studies 1–3 by testing the helping effects with a between-group rather than with a within-subject design. This means that each participant only read one of the versions on each helping effect.
General discussion
This article contributes to the field by being the first to systematically test multiple mediators on different helping effects. The results suggest that different helping effects are primarily mediated by different psychological mechanisms. More specifically, primarily emotional reactions (sympathy) mediate the identifiable victim effect (IVE), primarily perceived impact mediates the proportion dominance effect (PDE), and primarily perceived responsibility mediates the in-group effect (IGE).
Conclusions
This article combined the “when” and “why” of helping by investigating if different helping effects are mediated by different psychological mechanisms. The results suggest that the IVE is primarily mediated by emotional reactions (sympathy), that the PDE is primarily mediated by perceived impact and that the IGE is primarily mediated by perceived responsibility. The article emphasizes the separation of different helping effects; the importance of testing different types of psychological
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grants from Helge Ax:son Johnsons Stiftelse.
We are grateful to Oskar Sundfelt, Fredrik Johansson and Oscar Skoglund for help with data collection and to Larry Curtis for proofreading the manuscript.
References (71)
Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(2006)- et al.
A group construal account of drop-in-the-bucket thinking in policy preference and moral judgment
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2011) - et al.
Responsibility: The tie that binds
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2012) - et al.
The donor is in the details
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(2013) - et al.
Goal gradient in helping behavior
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2013) - et al.
Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(1997) A theory of impact philanthropy
Journal of Public Economics
(2004)- et al.
Psychophysical numbing: When lives are valued less as the lives at risk increase
Journal of Consumer Psychology
(1999) - et al.
Proportional reasoning, framing effects, and affirmative action: Is six of one really half a dozen of another in university admissions?
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(2005) - et al.
Same numbers, different meanings: How numeracy influences the importance of numbers for pro-social behavior
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2013)
The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
“One of us”: Outstanding willingness to help save a single identified compatriot
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
The bedside manner of homo economicus: How and why priming an economic schema reduces compassion
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Partiality and identity—Psychological research on preferential behavior toward group members
Ally or adversary: The effect of identifiability in inter-group conflict situations
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Opinion similarity and helping: Three field experiments investigating the bases of promotive tension
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
It’s the thought that counts: On perceiving how helpers decide to lend a hand
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Limiting the scope of moral obligations to help: A cross-cultural investigation
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
The duty to support nationalistic policies
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of responsibility
Psychology and Marketing
Altruism in humans
Empathy, attitudes and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning
Journal of Marketing
Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions
Judgment and Decision Making
Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
The social psychology of prosocial behavior
Perceived utility (not sympathy) mediates the proportion dominance effect in helping decisions
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Cited by (118)
Empathy for the pain of others: Sensitivity to the individual, not to the collective
2024, Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyGiving (in) to help an identified person
2024, Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyRecognizing and correcting positive bias: The salient victim effect
2023, Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyCorporate sociopolitical activism (CSA): The role of perceived impact on consumer response to contribution type
2023, International Journal of Hospitality ManagementCharitable maximizers: The impact of the maximizing mindset on donations to human recipients
2023, International Journal of Research in Marketing
- ☆
The first author presented parts of the results during the 34th annual conference of the Society of Judgment and Decision Making in Toronto, November 15–18, 2013.